The User's Guide To Integrated Planning

It’s easy to demand that new wastewater and stormwater projects be completed efficiently while their undertaking stays affordable and impact remains environmentally friendly. It’s quite different to be a municipality embarking on these projects, often several at once with countless moving parts and no shortage of concerned parties, giving them each the attention and resources they need while appeasing government oversight and keeping ratepayers satisfied.

The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), the research branch of the waste and stormwater industry’s primary trade and lobbying group, is developing a set of tools and data to help communities pursue wastewater and stormwater projects that integrate multiple disciplines while complying with regulations and keeping costs down.

The project is called the “User’s Guide for Integrated Planning for Wastewater and Stormwater.” It is expected to cover facility planning and asset management, economics, watershed and infrastructure modeling, green infrastructure, water quality compliance and planning, and legal needs. WERF also hopes to identify and include the top 10 reasons communities are or are not pursuing integrated planning for their peers’ consideration.

The guide is being produced by a consortium of parties. Scientific specialists Geosyntec Consultants and environmental law firm Barnes & Thornburg are working to identify the growing need for integrated planning in wastewater and stormwater, Patricia McGovern Engineers has been tapped for its analytical expertise in the water industries, and the University of Cincinnati Economics Center is tasked with providing financial analyses to help planning decisions.

“The project team will compile information from case studies to develop a list of integrated planning tools and data needed and identify gaps with each,” said Carrie W. Capuco, WERF Director of Communications. “For each tool, we will have information about why communities selected the tools they are using and the strengths, weaknesses, and drawbacks associated with their use. The project team members with expertise in different areas of integrated planning will provide qualitative and readily available information about the level of complexity, cost, and other factors for applying tools as well as the data collected to inform them.”

The guide emerged as an answer for a changing dynamic between wastewater and stormwater regulations and the practicality of developing new projects.

“For 43 years, individual regulators have been trained in the pollutant-by-pollutant permitting and enforcement approach,” said Capuco, referring to the time since the U.S. EPA introduced the Clean Water Act.

At a recent National Association of Clean Water Agencies workshop, Capuco explained, EPA regulators indicated that while the agency still plans to enforce its rules, it is open to evaluating innovative solutions that consider the cost/benefit financial impacts of complying with them. Following that revelation, the idea to develop a toolbox for integrated planning was born.

“This research is intended to get communities talking with each other about integrated planning, help align EPA’s vision for integrated planning with the realities that municipalities face in implementing the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, and to create a dynamic user’s guide that provides municipalities and regulators with up-to-date information regarding the state-of-the-science on integrated planning as it continues to evolve,” said Capuco.

Following an informal survey of clients, WERF identified several consequences when municipalities push forward on separate wastewater and stormwater projects without coordinating them.

“Communities face substantial challenges, including [difficulty] engaging participants from disadvantaged communities, a lack of coordination or integration of overlapping projects and programs, and a lack of knowledge,” Capuco said.

As for communities that do want to coordinate projects, WERF’s survey found that without education or a user’s guide, many are unable to do so effectively.

“Communities trying to do integrated planning are struggling with regulatory staff that have not received training or guidance on integrated planning or lack the resources to help,” Capuco said. “Individual regulators may not even buy into the need for integrated planning.”

More data might be just what communities and regulators need to revise the way they look at these projects. A guide like this promises to bring more light to the entire process, from the decision making to the implementation, and may lead to a rise in integrated planning around the country. If it makes things easier for communities hoping to satisfy consumers and regulators alike, then it is surely welcome.